Volunteer Summary
CONSORT Flow Diagram
Overall status
Characteristic | Overall1 | Control1 | Treatment1 |
|---|---|---|---|
time_point | |||
1st | 90 | 50 | 40 |
2nd | 64 | 31 | 33 |
1n | |||
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 901 | control, N = 501 | treatment, N = 401 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 90 | 40.53 ± 17.78 (21 - 148) | 41.46 ± 19.78 (22 - 148) | 39.36 ± 15.09 (21 - 70) | 0.580 |
gender | 90 | 0.232 | |||
female | 64 (71%) | 33 (66%) | 31 (78%) | ||
male | 26 (29%) | 17 (34%) | 9 (22%) | ||
occupation | 90 | 0.754 | |||
civil | 3 (3.3%) | 2 (4.0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
clerk | 17 (19%) | 8 (16%) | 9 (22%) | ||
homemaker | 8 (8.9%) | 3 (6.0%) | 5 (12%) | ||
manager | 11 (12%) | 7 (14%) | 4 (10%) | ||
other | 10 (11%) | 4 (8.0%) | 6 (15%) | ||
professional | 13 (14%) | 10 (20%) | 3 (7.5%) | ||
retired | 4 (4.4%) | 2 (4.0%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
service | 4 (4.4%) | 2 (4.0%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
student | 18 (20%) | 11 (22%) | 7 (18%) | ||
unemploy | 2 (2.2%) | 1 (2.0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
working_status | 90 | 58 (64%) | 33 (66%) | 25 (62%) | 0.730 |
marital | 90 | 0.715 | |||
divorced | 3 (3.3%) | 1 (2.0%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
married | 25 (28%) | 15 (30%) | 10 (25%) | ||
single | 61 (68%) | 33 (66%) | 28 (70%) | ||
widowed | 1 (1.1%) | 1 (2.0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
marital_r | 90 | 0.866 | |||
married | 25 (28%) | 15 (30%) | 10 (25%) | ||
other | 4 (4.4%) | 2 (4.0%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
single | 61 (68%) | 33 (66%) | 28 (70%) | ||
education | 90 | 0.017 | |||
primary | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
secondary | 11 (12%) | 2 (4.0%) | 9 (22%) | ||
post-secondary | 15 (17%) | 11 (22%) | 4 (10%) | ||
university | 64 (71%) | 37 (74%) | 27 (68%) | ||
university_edu | 90 | 64 (71%) | 37 (74%) | 27 (68%) | 0.499 |
family_income | 90 | 0.335 | |||
0_10000 | 11 (12%) | 5 (10%) | 6 (15%) | ||
10001_20000 | 19 (21%) | 7 (14%) | 12 (30%) | ||
20001_30000 | 14 (16%) | 9 (18%) | 5 (12%) | ||
30001_40000 | 13 (14%) | 8 (16%) | 5 (12%) | ||
40000_above | 33 (37%) | 21 (42%) | 12 (30%) | ||
high_income | 90 | 46 (51%) | 29 (58%) | 17 (42%) | 0.144 |
religion | 90 | 0.567 | |||
buddhism | 5 (5.6%) | 4 (8.0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
catholic | 5 (5.6%) | 2 (4.0%) | 3 (7.5%) | ||
christianity | 33 (37%) | 19 (38%) | 14 (35%) | ||
nil | 45 (50%) | 25 (50%) | 20 (50%) | ||
other | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
taoism | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
religion_r | 90 | >0.999 | |||
christianity | 38 (42%) | 21 (42%) | 17 (42%) | ||
nil | 45 (50%) | 25 (50%) | 20 (50%) | ||
other | 7 (7.8%) | 4 (8.0%) | 3 (7.5%) | ||
source | 90 | 0.023 | |||
bokss | 38 (42%) | 17 (34%) | 21 (52%) | ||
12 (13%) | 10 (20%) | 2 (5.0%) | |||
6 (6.7%) | 6 (12%) | 0 (0%) | |||
other | 17 (19%) | 8 (16%) | 9 (22%) | ||
refresh | 17 (19%) | 9 (18%) | 8 (20%) | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 901 | control, N = 501 | treatment, N = 401 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | 90 | 19.41 ± 2.28 (15 - 25) | 19.04 ± 2.13 (15 - 24) | 19.88 ± 2.40 (15 - 25) | 0.084 |
setv | 90 | 11.23 ± 1.68 (8 - 15) | 11.08 ± 1.63 (8 - 15) | 11.43 ± 1.75 (8 - 15) | 0.337 |
maks | 90 | 44.86 ± 3.84 (36 - 57) | 44.38 ± 3.56 (36 - 52) | 45.45 ± 4.14 (38 - 57) | 0.191 |
ibs | 90 | 15.67 ± 2.15 (9 - 20) | 15.64 ± 2.03 (11 - 20) | 15.70 ± 2.31 (9 - 20) | 0.896 |
ers_e | 90 | 12.24 ± 1.46 (8 - 15) | 12.22 ± 1.52 (8 - 15) | 12.28 ± 1.40 (9 - 15) | 0.860 |
ers_r | 90 | 11.32 ± 1.50 (8 - 15) | 11.20 ± 1.39 (8 - 14) | 11.47 ± 1.63 (8 - 15) | 0.390 |
pss_pa | 90 | 45.07 ± 4.57 (30 - 54) | 44.70 ± 4.44 (30 - 54) | 45.52 ± 4.74 (31 - 54) | 0.398 |
pss_ps | 90 | 25.49 ± 7.23 (12 - 42) | 26.28 ± 7.39 (13 - 42) | 24.50 ± 7.00 (12 - 41) | 0.248 |
pss | 90 | 43.42 ± 11.05 (21 - 72) | 44.58 ± 11.20 (22 - 72) | 41.98 ± 10.83 (21 - 67) | 0.269 |
rki_responsible | 90 | 21.23 ± 4.02 (13 - 29) | 20.86 ± 4.32 (13 - 29) | 21.70 ± 3.60 (14 - 28) | 0.327 |
rki_nonlinear | 90 | 13.40 ± 2.73 (6 - 22) | 13.18 ± 2.56 (6 - 20) | 13.68 ± 2.95 (8 - 22) | 0.397 |
rki_peer | 90 | 20.43 ± 2.18 (16 - 25) | 20.48 ± 2.18 (16 - 25) | 20.38 ± 2.20 (16 - 25) | 0.822 |
rki_expect | 90 | 4.68 ± 1.07 (2 - 8) | 4.48 ± 1.09 (2 - 8) | 4.92 ± 1.00 (3 - 7) | 0.049 |
rki | 90 | 59.74 ± 5.86 (45 - 80) | 59.00 ± 5.99 (45 - 76) | 60.67 ± 5.64 (50 - 80) | 0.179 |
raq_possible | 90 | 15.58 ± 1.82 (12 - 20) | 15.62 ± 1.90 (12 - 20) | 15.53 ± 1.74 (12 - 20) | 0.808 |
raq_difficulty | 90 | 12.33 ± 1.41 (9 - 15) | 12.46 ± 1.42 (9 - 15) | 12.18 ± 1.41 (9 - 15) | 0.345 |
raq | 90 | 27.91 ± 2.96 (21 - 35) | 28.08 ± 3.08 (21 - 35) | 27.70 ± 2.84 (21 - 35) | 0.548 |
who | 90 | 15.04 ± 4.35 (6 - 25) | 15.06 ± 4.19 (8 - 25) | 15.03 ± 4.59 (6 - 25) | 0.970 |
phq | 90 | 3.40 ± 3.64 (0 - 18) | 3.36 ± 3.44 (0 - 14) | 3.45 ± 3.92 (0 - 18) | 0.908 |
gad | 90 | 2.90 ± 3.02 (0 - 12) | 2.96 ± 2.97 (0 - 12) | 2.83 ± 3.11 (0 - 12) | 0.834 |
nb_pcs | 90 | 51.16 ± 7.74 (25 - 63) | 51.92 ± 7.51 (25 - 63) | 50.20 ± 8.01 (27 - 61) | 0.297 |
nb_mcs | 90 | 51.14 ± 8.25 (22 - 70) | 50.86 ± 8.31 (22 - 68) | 51.48 ± 8.27 (35 - 70) | 0.724 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.305 | 18.4, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.835 | 0.457 | -0.061, 1.73 | 0.070 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.302 | 0.397 | -1.08, 0.476 | 0.449 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.220 | 0.562 | -0.881, 1.32 | 0.696 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
setv | (Intercept) | 11.1 | 0.240 | 10.6, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.345 | 0.360 | -0.361, 1.05 | 0.340 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.195 | 0.268 | -0.330, 0.719 | 0.469 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.051 | 0.377 | -0.790, 0.687 | 0.892 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
maks | (Intercept) | 44.4 | 0.556 | 43.3, 45.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.07 | 0.834 | -0.564, 2.70 | 0.202 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.095 | 0.532 | -1.14, 0.948 | 0.859 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.029 | 0.747 | -1.43, 1.49 | 0.969 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ibs | (Intercept) | 15.6 | 0.297 | 15.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.060 | 0.445 | -0.813, 0.933 | 0.893 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.136 | 0.312 | -0.476, 0.748 | 0.664 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.443 | 0.439 | -0.417, 1.30 | 0.316 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ers_e | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.206 | 11.8, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.055 | 0.308 | -0.549, 0.659 | 0.859 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.535 | 0.208 | -0.944, -0.127 | 0.012 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.726 | 0.293 | 0.152, 1.30 | 0.016 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
ers_r | (Intercept) | 11.2 | 0.202 | 10.8, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.275 | 0.302 | -0.318, 0.868 | 0.365 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.152 | 0.261 | -0.663, 0.359 | 0.563 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.218 | 0.369 | -0.505, 0.941 | 0.557 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
pss_pa | (Intercept) | 44.7 | 0.647 | 43.4, 46.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.825 | 0.971 | -1.08, 2.73 | 0.397 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.55 | 0.807 | -3.14, 0.027 | 0.058 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.561 | 1.141 | -1.67, 2.80 | 0.624 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
pss_ps | (Intercept) | 26.3 | 1.026 | 24.3, 28.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.78 | 1.538 | -4.80, 1.24 | 0.250 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.49 | 1.165 | -0.796, 3.77 | 0.206 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.50 | 1.641 | -4.71, 1.72 | 0.365 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.031 | ||||
pss | (Intercept) | 44.6 | 1.541 | 41.6, 47.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.60 | 2.312 | -7.14, 1.93 | 0.262 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.98 | 1.689 | -0.327, 6.29 | 0.081 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.93 | 2.378 | -6.60, 2.73 | 0.419 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
rki_responsible | (Intercept) | 20.9 | 0.560 | 19.8, 22.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.841 | -0.808, 2.49 | 0.320 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.037 | 0.621 | -1.25, 1.18 | 0.953 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.433 | 0.874 | -2.15, 1.28 | 0.622 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
rki_nonlinear | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.418 | 12.4, 14.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.495 | 0.628 | -0.735, 1.73 | 0.432 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.270 | 0.470 | -1.19, 0.652 | 0.567 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.462 | 0.663 | -0.836, 1.76 | 0.488 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
rki_peer | (Intercept) | 20.5 | 0.320 | 19.9, 21.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.105 | 0.481 | -1.05, 0.837 | 0.827 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.100 | 0.380 | -0.646, 0.845 | 0.794 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.121 | 0.537 | -0.930, 1.17 | 0.822 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
rki_expect | (Intercept) | 4.48 | 0.142 | 4.20, 4.76 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.445 | 0.212 | 0.029, 0.861 | 0.038 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.086 | 0.199 | -0.305, 0.477 | 0.667 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.102 | 0.283 | -0.453, 0.657 | 0.719 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.063 | ||||
rki | (Intercept) | 59.0 | 0.835 | 57.4, 60.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.67 | 1.253 | -0.781, 4.13 | 0.184 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.097 | 0.939 | -1.94, 1.74 | 0.918 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.246 | 1.322 | -2.35, 2.84 | 0.853 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
raq_possible | (Intercept) | 15.6 | 0.252 | 15.1, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.095 | 0.379 | -0.837, 0.647 | 0.802 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.265 | 0.298 | -0.848, 0.319 | 0.377 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.682 | 0.420 | -0.140, 1.50 | 0.108 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
raq_difficulty | (Intercept) | 12.5 | 0.199 | 12.1, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.285 | 0.298 | -0.870, 0.300 | 0.341 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.076 | 0.234 | -0.534, 0.382 | 0.746 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.277 | 0.330 | -0.369, 0.923 | 0.403 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
raq | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 0.417 | 27.3, 28.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.380 | 0.625 | -1.61, 0.845 | 0.544 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.292 | 0.461 | -1.19, 0.611 | 0.528 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.909 | 0.648 | -0.362, 2.18 | 0.165 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
who | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.613 | 13.9, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.035 | 0.919 | -1.84, 1.77 | 0.970 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.293 | 0.623 | -1.51, 0.929 | 0.640 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.851 | 0.876 | -0.866, 2.57 | 0.335 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
phq | (Intercept) | 3.36 | 0.492 | 2.40, 4.32 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.090 | 0.738 | -1.36, 1.54 | 0.903 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.203 | 0.399 | -0.579, 0.985 | 0.613 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.171 | 0.559 | -1.27, 0.924 | 0.761 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
gad | (Intercept) | 2.96 | 0.437 | 2.10, 3.82 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.135 | 0.656 | -1.42, 1.15 | 0.837 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.299 | 0.443 | -0.569, 1.17 | 0.501 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.151 | 0.622 | -1.37, 1.07 | 0.809 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
nb_pcs | (Intercept) | 51.9 | 1.046 | 49.9, 54.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.72 | 1.569 | -4.80, 1.35 | 0.275 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.994 | 0.946 | -2.85, 0.859 | 0.297 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.98 | 1.326 | -0.618, 4.58 | 0.140 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
nb_mcs | (Intercept) | 50.9 | 1.145 | 48.6, 53.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.622 | 1.718 | -2.75, 3.99 | 0.718 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.325 | 1.282 | -2.84, 2.19 | 0.800 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.247 | 1.806 | -3.29, 3.79 | 0.891 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
sets
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sets with group and time_point (formula: sets ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.04 (95% CI [18.44, 19.64], t(148) = 62.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.73], t(148) = 1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.79])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.48], t(148) = -0.76, p = 0.447; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.32], t(148) = 0.39, p = 0.695; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
setv
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict setv with group and time_point (formula: setv ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.08 (95% CI [10.61, 11.55], t(148) = 46.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.36, 1.05], t(148) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.72], t(148) = 0.73, p = 0.467; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.69], t(148) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
maks
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict maks with group and time_point (formula: maks ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.38 (95% CI [43.29, 45.47], t(148) = 79.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.70], t(148) = 1.28, p = 0.199; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.95], t(148) = -0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.49], t(148) = 0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = 7.44e-03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ibs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ibs with group and time_point (formula: ibs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.64 (95% CI [15.06, 16.22], t(148) = 52.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.93], t(148) = 0.13, p = 0.893; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.75], t(148) = 0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.30], t(148) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_e
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_e with group and time_point (formula: ers_e ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.22 (95% CI [11.82, 12.62], t(148) = 59.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.66], t(148) = 0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.94, -0.13], t(148) = -2.57, p = 0.010; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.15, 1.30], t(148) = 2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.10, 0.89])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_r
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_r with group and time_point (formula: ers_r ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.20 (95% CI [10.80, 11.60], t(148) = 55.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.87], t(148) = 0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.36], t(148) = -0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.94], t(148) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_pa
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_pa with group and time_point (formula: pss_pa ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.70 (95% CI [43.43, 45.97], t(148) = 69.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.73], t(148) = 0.85, p = 0.396; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.55, 95% CI [-3.14, 0.03], t(148) = -1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.68, 5.86e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-1.67, 2.80], t(148) = 0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_ps
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_ps with group and time_point (formula: pss_ps ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.28 (95% CI [24.27, 28.29], t(148) = 25.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-4.80, 1.24], t(148) = -1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.80, 3.77], t(148) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-4.71, 1.72], t(148) = -0.91, p = 0.362; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss with group and time_point (formula: pss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.58 (95% CI [41.56, 47.60], t(148) = 28.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.60, 95% CI [-7.14, 1.93], t(148) = -1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.98, 95% CI [-0.33, 6.29], t(148) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.57])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.93, 95% CI [-6.60, 2.73], t(148) = -0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_responsible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_responsible with group and time_point (formula: rki_responsible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.86 (95% CI [19.76, 21.96], t(148) = 37.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.49], t(148) = 1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.18], t(148) = -0.06, p = 0.953; Std. beta = -9.47e-03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.28], t(148) = -0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_nonlinear
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_nonlinear with group and time_point (formula: rki_nonlinear ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.18 (95% CI [12.36, 14.00], t(148) = 31.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.73], t(148) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.65], t(148) = -0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.76], t(148) = 0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_peer
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_peer with group and time_point (formula: rki_peer ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.48 (95% CI [19.85, 21.11], t(148) = 63.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.84], t(148) = -0.22, p = 0.827; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.85], t(148) = 0.26, p = 0.793; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.17], t(148) = 0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_expect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_expect with group and time_point (formula: rki_expect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 4.48 (95% CI [4.20, 4.76], t(148) = 31.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [0.03, 0.86], t(148) = 2.09, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [0.03, 0.84])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.48], t(148) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.66], t(148) = 0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki with group and time_point (formula: rki ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 59.00 (95% CI [57.36, 60.64], t(148) = 70.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.78, 4.13], t(148) = 1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.94, 1.74], t(148) = -0.10, p = 0.918; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.35, 2.84], t(148) = 0.19, p = 0.852; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_possible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_possible with group and time_point (formula: raq_possible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.62 (95% CI [15.13, 16.11], t(148) = 61.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.65], t(148) = -0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.32], t(148) = -0.89, p = 0.374; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.50], t(148) = 1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.84])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_difficulty
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_difficulty with group and time_point (formula: raq_difficulty ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.20e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.46 (95% CI [12.07, 12.85], t(148) = 62.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.30], t(148) = -0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.38], t(148) = -0.32, p = 0.745; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.92], t(148) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq with group and time_point (formula: raq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.08 (95% CI [27.26, 28.90], t(148) = 67.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.61, 0.85], t(148) = -0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.61], t(148) = -0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.18], t(148) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
who
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict who with group and time_point (formula: who ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.06 (95% CI [13.86, 16.26], t(148) = 24.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.84, 1.77], t(148) = -0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = -8.13e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.93], t(148) = -0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.57], t(148) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
phq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict phq with group and time_point (formula: phq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.50e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.36 (95% CI [2.40, 4.32], t(148) = 6.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.54], t(148) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.98], t(148) = 0.51, p = 0.611; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.92], t(148) = -0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
gad
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict gad with group and time_point (formula: gad ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 2.96 (95% CI [2.10, 3.82], t(148) = 6.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.42, 1.15], t(148) = -0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.17], t(148) = 0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.37, 1.07], t(148) = -0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_pcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_pcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_pcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 51.92 (95% CI [49.87, 53.97], t(148) = 49.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-4.80, 1.35], t(148) = -1.10, p = 0.272; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-2.85, 0.86], t(148) = -1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.98, 95% CI [-0.62, 4.58], t(148) = 1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_mcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_mcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_mcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 50.86 (95% CI [48.62, 53.11], t(148) = 44.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-2.75, 3.99], t(148) = 0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-2.84, 2.19], t(148) = -0.25, p = 0.800; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-3.29, 3.79], t(148) = 0.14, p = 0.891; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | null | 3 | 669.586 | 678.697 | -331.793 | 663.586 | |||
sets | random | 6 | 669.833 | 688.055 | -328.917 | 657.833 | 5.752 | 3 | 0.124 |
setv | null | 3 | 577.445 | 586.556 | -285.723 | 571.445 | |||
setv | random | 6 | 581.516 | 599.738 | -284.758 | 569.516 | 1.929 | 3 | 0.587 |
maks | null | 3 | 819.550 | 828.661 | -406.775 | 813.550 | |||
maks | random | 6 | 823.604 | 841.826 | -405.802 | 811.604 | 1.946 | 3 | 0.584 |
ibs | null | 3 | 638.953 | 648.064 | -316.476 | 632.953 | |||
ibs | random | 6 | 640.855 | 659.077 | -314.427 | 628.855 | 4.098 | 3 | 0.251 |
ers_e | null | 3 | 526.164 | 535.275 | -260.082 | 520.164 | |||
ers_e | random | 6 | 523.690 | 541.912 | -255.845 | 511.690 | 8.474 | 3 | 0.037 |
ers_r | null | 3 | 538.227 | 547.338 | -266.114 | 532.227 | |||
ers_r | random | 6 | 541.985 | 560.207 | -264.993 | 529.985 | 2.242 | 3 | 0.524 |
pss_pa | null | 3 | 898.484 | 907.595 | -446.242 | 892.484 | |||
pss_pa | random | 6 | 898.073 | 916.295 | -443.037 | 886.073 | 6.411 | 3 | 0.093 |
pss_ps | null | 3 | 1,029.042 | 1,038.153 | -511.521 | 1,023.042 | |||
pss_ps | random | 6 | 1,030.724 | 1,048.946 | -509.362 | 1,018.724 | 4.318 | 3 | 0.229 |
pss | null | 3 | 1,152.243 | 1,161.354 | -573.121 | 1,146.243 | |||
pss | random | 6 | 1,152.475 | 1,170.696 | -570.237 | 1,140.475 | 5.768 | 3 | 0.123 |
rki_responsible | null | 3 | 837.367 | 846.477 | -415.683 | 831.367 | |||
rki_responsible | random | 6 | 842.036 | 860.258 | -415.018 | 830.036 | 1.331 | 3 | 0.722 |
rki_nonlinear | null | 3 | 749.435 | 758.546 | -371.717 | 743.435 | |||
rki_nonlinear | random | 6 | 753.539 | 771.761 | -370.769 | 741.539 | 1.896 | 3 | 0.594 |
rki_peer | null | 3 | 671.192 | 680.303 | -332.596 | 665.192 | |||
rki_peer | random | 6 | 676.760 | 694.982 | -332.380 | 664.760 | 0.432 | 3 | 0.934 |
rki_expect | null | 3 | 442.445 | 451.556 | -218.222 | 436.445 | |||
rki_expect | random | 6 | 439.809 | 458.031 | -213.905 | 427.809 | 8.636 | 3 | 0.035 |
rki | null | 3 | 962.940 | 972.050 | -478.470 | 956.940 | |||
rki | random | 6 | 966.476 | 984.697 | -477.238 | 954.476 | 2.464 | 3 | 0.482 |
raq_possible | null | 3 | 599.750 | 608.860 | -296.875 | 593.750 | |||
raq_possible | random | 6 | 602.655 | 620.876 | -295.327 | 590.655 | 3.095 | 3 | 0.377 |
raq_difficulty | null | 3 | 524.143 | 533.254 | -259.072 | 518.143 | |||
raq_difficulty | random | 6 | 528.850 | 547.072 | -258.425 | 516.850 | 1.293 | 3 | 0.731 |
raq | null | 3 | 746.814 | 755.924 | -370.407 | 740.814 | |||
raq | random | 6 | 750.539 | 768.761 | -369.270 | 738.539 | 2.274 | 3 | 0.517 |
who | null | 3 | 855.604 | 864.715 | -424.802 | 849.604 | |||
who | random | 6 | 860.410 | 878.632 | -424.205 | 848.410 | 1.194 | 3 | 0.754 |
phq | null | 3 | 761.186 | 770.296 | -377.593 | 755.186 | |||
phq | random | 6 | 766.913 | 785.135 | -377.457 | 754.913 | 0.272 | 3 | 0.965 |
gad | null | 3 | 750.607 | 759.718 | -372.304 | 744.607 | |||
gad | random | 6 | 755.949 | 774.171 | -371.975 | 743.949 | 0.658 | 3 | 0.883 |
nb_pcs | null | 3 | 1,008.659 | 1,017.770 | -501.329 | 1,002.659 | |||
nb_pcs | random | 6 | 1,011.945 | 1,030.166 | -499.972 | 999.945 | 2.714 | 3 | 0.438 |
nb_mcs | null | 3 | 1,057.519 | 1,066.630 | -525.760 | 1,051.519 | |||
nb_mcs | random | 6 | 1,063.248 | 1,081.470 | -525.624 | 1,051.248 | 0.271 | 3 | 0.965 |
Post hoc analysis text
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
sets | 1st | 50 | 19.04 ± 2.15 | 40 | 19.88 ± 2.15 | 0.070 | -0.503 | ||
sets | 2nd | 31 | 18.74 ± 2.10 | 0.182 | 33 | 19.79 ± 2.13 | 0.049 | 0.048 | -0.636 |
setv | 1st | 50 | 11.08 ± 1.70 | 40 | 11.42 ± 1.70 | 0.340 | -0.314 | ||
setv | 2nd | 31 | 11.27 ± 1.59 | -0.177 | 33 | 11.57 ± 1.65 | -0.131 | 0.469 | -0.268 |
maks | 1st | 50 | 44.38 ± 3.93 | 40 | 45.45 ± 3.93 | 0.202 | -0.496 | ||
maks | 2nd | 31 | 44.28 ± 3.55 | 0.044 | 33 | 45.38 ± 3.76 | 0.031 | 0.231 | -0.510 |
ibs | 1st | 50 | 15.64 ± 2.10 | 40 | 15.70 ± 2.10 | 0.893 | -0.047 | ||
ibs | 2nd | 31 | 15.78 ± 1.94 | -0.107 | 33 | 16.28 ± 2.03 | -0.454 | 0.312 | -0.395 |
ers_e | 1st | 50 | 12.22 ± 1.45 | 40 | 12.27 ± 1.45 | 0.859 | -0.065 | ||
ers_e | 2nd | 31 | 11.68 ± 1.33 | 0.631 | 33 | 12.47 ± 1.40 | -0.225 | 0.024 | -0.921 |
ers_r | 1st | 50 | 11.20 ± 1.43 | 40 | 11.47 ± 1.43 | 0.365 | -0.253 | ||
ers_r | 2nd | 31 | 11.05 ± 1.38 | 0.139 | 33 | 11.54 ± 1.41 | -0.061 | 0.160 | -0.453 |
pss_pa | 1st | 50 | 44.70 ± 4.58 | 40 | 45.52 ± 4.58 | 0.397 | -0.246 | ||
pss_pa | 2nd | 31 | 43.15 ± 4.40 | 0.464 | 33 | 44.53 ± 4.50 | 0.296 | 0.215 | -0.413 |
pss_ps | 1st | 50 | 26.28 ± 7.25 | 40 | 24.50 ± 7.25 | 0.250 | 0.372 | ||
pss_ps | 2nd | 31 | 27.77 ± 6.82 | -0.311 | 33 | 24.49 ± 7.06 | 0.002 | 0.061 | 0.684 |
pss | 1st | 50 | 44.58 ± 10.90 | 40 | 41.98 ± 10.90 | 0.262 | 0.376 | ||
pss | 2nd | 31 | 47.56 ± 10.16 | -0.431 | 33 | 43.02 ± 10.56 | -0.152 | 0.082 | 0.656 |
rki_responsible | 1st | 50 | 20.86 ± 3.96 | 40 | 21.70 ± 3.96 | 0.320 | -0.330 | ||
rki_responsible | 2nd | 31 | 20.82 ± 3.70 | 0.015 | 33 | 21.23 ± 3.85 | 0.185 | 0.667 | -0.160 |
rki_nonlinear | 1st | 50 | 13.18 ± 2.96 | 40 | 13.67 ± 2.96 | 0.432 | -0.256 | ||
rki_nonlinear | 2nd | 31 | 12.91 ± 2.78 | 0.140 | 33 | 13.87 ± 2.88 | -0.099 | 0.178 | -0.496 |
rki_peer | 1st | 50 | 20.48 ± 2.27 | 40 | 20.38 ± 2.27 | 0.827 | 0.067 | ||
rki_peer | 2nd | 31 | 20.58 ± 2.15 | -0.064 | 33 | 20.60 ± 2.21 | -0.141 | 0.976 | -0.010 |
rki_expect | 1st | 50 | 4.48 ± 1.00 | 40 | 4.92 ± 1.00 | 0.038 | -0.527 | ||
rki_expect | 2nd | 31 | 4.57 ± 0.99 | -0.102 | 33 | 5.11 ± 1.00 | -0.223 | 0.029 | -0.648 |
rki | 1st | 50 | 59.00 ± 5.91 | 40 | 60.68 ± 5.91 | 0.184 | -0.434 | ||
rki | 2nd | 31 | 58.90 ± 5.54 | 0.025 | 33 | 60.82 ± 5.74 | -0.039 | 0.175 | -0.498 |
raq_possible | 1st | 50 | 15.62 ± 1.79 | 40 | 15.53 ± 1.79 | 0.802 | 0.077 | ||
raq_possible | 2nd | 31 | 15.36 ± 1.69 | 0.215 | 33 | 15.94 ± 1.74 | -0.340 | 0.174 | -0.478 |
raq_difficulty | 1st | 50 | 12.46 ± 1.41 | 40 | 12.18 ± 1.41 | 0.341 | 0.296 | ||
raq_difficulty | 2nd | 31 | 12.38 ± 1.33 | 0.079 | 33 | 12.38 ± 1.37 | -0.209 | 0.981 | 0.008 |
raq | 1st | 50 | 28.08 ± 2.95 | 40 | 27.70 ± 2.95 | 0.544 | 0.201 | ||
raq | 2nd | 31 | 27.79 ± 2.75 | 0.155 | 33 | 28.32 ± 2.86 | -0.327 | 0.452 | -0.280 |
who | 1st | 50 | 15.06 ± 4.33 | 40 | 15.02 ± 4.33 | 0.970 | 0.014 | ||
who | 2nd | 31 | 14.77 ± 3.97 | 0.115 | 33 | 15.58 ± 4.17 | -0.220 | 0.424 | -0.322 |
phq | 1st | 50 | 3.36 ± 3.48 | 40 | 3.45 ± 3.48 | 0.903 | -0.056 | ||
phq | 2nd | 31 | 3.56 ± 3.04 | -0.126 | 33 | 3.48 ± 3.28 | -0.020 | 0.919 | 0.050 |
gad | 1st | 50 | 2.96 ± 3.09 | 40 | 2.83 ± 3.09 | 0.837 | 0.075 | ||
gad | 2nd | 31 | 3.26 ± 2.83 | -0.166 | 33 | 2.97 ± 2.97 | -0.082 | 0.694 | 0.159 |
nb_pcs | 1st | 50 | 51.92 ± 7.40 | 40 | 50.20 ± 7.40 | 0.275 | 0.451 | ||
nb_pcs | 2nd | 31 | 50.93 ± 6.61 | 0.260 | 33 | 51.19 ± 7.04 | -0.258 | 0.880 | -0.068 |
nb_mcs | 1st | 50 | 50.86 ± 8.10 | 40 | 51.48 ± 8.10 | 0.718 | -0.118 | ||
nb_mcs | 2nd | 31 | 50.54 ± 7.59 | 0.062 | 33 | 51.41 ± 7.87 | 0.015 | 0.653 | -0.165 |
Between group
sets
1st
t(132.35) = 1.83, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.74)
2st
t(146.78) = 2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.10)
setv
1st
t(118.65) = 0.96, p = 0.340, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.06)
2st
t(140.58) = 0.73, p = 0.469, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.09)
maks
1st
t(109.33) = 1.28, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.72)
2st
t(132.43) = 1.20, p = 0.231, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.91)
ibs
1st
t(114.67) = 0.13, p = 0.893, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.82 to 0.94)
2st
t(137.63) = 1.02, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.48)
ers_e
1st
t(112.40) = 0.18, p = 0.859, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.67)
2st
t(135.62) = 2.29, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.46)
ers_r
1st
t(131.62) = 0.91, p = 0.365, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.87)
2st
t(146.56) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.18)
pss_pa
1st
t(128.07) = 0.85, p = 0.397, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.75)
2st
t(145.34) = 1.24, p = 0.215, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.81 to 3.59)
pss_ps
1st
t(120.09) = -1.16, p = 0.250, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-4.83 to 1.27)
2st
t(141.49) = -1.89, p = 0.061, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-6.70 to 0.15)
pss
1st
t(117.45) = -1.13, p = 0.262, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-7.18 to 1.97)
2st
t(139.76) = -1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-9.66 to 0.58)
rki_responsible
1st
t(118.20) = 1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.50)
2st
t(140.28) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.27)
rki_nonlinear
1st
t(119.30) = 0.79, p = 0.432, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.74)
2st
t(141.00) = 1.36, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.35)
rki_peer
1st
t(123.67) = -0.22, p = 0.827, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.85)
2st
t(143.44) = 0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.10)
rki_expect
1st
t(140.36) = 2.09, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.02 to 0.87)
2st
t(148.66) = 2.20, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.04)
rki
1st
t(119.26) = 1.34, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.81 to 4.16)
2st
t(140.98) = 1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.87 to 4.71)
raq_possible
1st
t(123.05) = -0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.65)
2st
t(143.13) = 1.37, p = 0.174, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.44)
raq_difficulty
1st
t(122.82) = -0.96, p = 0.341, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.31)
2st
t(143.02) = -0.02, p = 0.981, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.68 to 0.66)
raq
1st
t(118.02) = -0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.86)
2st
t(140.16) = 0.75, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.92)
who
1st
t(112.64) = -0.04, p = 0.970, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.86 to 1.79)
2st
t(135.85) = 0.80, p = 0.424, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.20 to 2.83)
phq
1st
t(102.56) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.37 to 1.55)
2st
t(123.09) = -0.10, p = 0.919, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.48)
gad
1st
t(112.42) = -0.21, p = 0.837, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.43 to 1.16)
2st
t(135.64) = -0.39, p = 0.694, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.15)
nb_pcs
1st
t(106.67) = -1.10, p = 0.275, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-4.83 to 1.39)
2st
t(129.18) = 0.15, p = 0.880, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-3.12 to 3.64)
nb_mcs
1st
t(118.96) = 0.36, p = 0.718, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.78 to 4.02)
2st
t(140.79) = 0.45, p = 0.653, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.95 to 4.69)
Within treatment group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(69.41) = -0.21, p = 0.838, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.71)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(67.03) = 0.54, p = 0.591, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.67)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(65.53) = -0.13, p = 0.900, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.98)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(66.39) = 1.87, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.20)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(66.02) = 0.93, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.60)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(69.28) = 0.25, p = 0.800, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.59)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(68.63) = -1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-2.60 to 0.62)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(67.27) = -0.01, p = 0.995, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-2.32 to 2.30)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(66.84) = 0.63, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.30 to 4.39)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(66.96) = -0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.70 to 0.76)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(67.14) = 0.41, p = 0.682, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.12)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(67.87) = 0.58, p = 0.561, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.98)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(71.09) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.59)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(67.14) = 0.16, p = 0.873, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.01)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(67.77) = 1.41, p = 0.163, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.01)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(67.73) = 0.86, p = 0.391, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.67)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(66.93) = 1.35, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.53)
who
1st vs 2st
t(66.06) = 0.91, p = 0.368, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.79)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(64.44) = 0.08, p = 0.935, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.81)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(66.02) = 0.34, p = 0.737, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.02)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(65.10) = 1.06, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.87 to 2.85)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(67.09) = -0.06, p = 0.951, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-2.62 to 2.46)
Within control group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(77.49) = -0.76, p = 0.451, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.49)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(72.73) = 0.73, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.73)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(69.58) = -0.18, p = 0.859, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.97)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(71.39) = 0.43, p = 0.665, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.76)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(70.62) = -2.56, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-0.95 to -0.12)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(77.23) = -0.58, p = 0.564, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.37)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(75.96) = -1.92, p = 0.059, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-3.17 to 0.06)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(73.22) = 1.27, p = 0.207, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.84 to 3.82)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(72.32) = 1.76, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.39 to 6.36)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(72.58) = -0.06, p = 0.953, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.20)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(72.95) = -0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.67)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(74.43) = 0.26, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.66 to 0.86)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(80.65) = 0.43, p = 0.669, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.48)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(72.94) = -0.10, p = 0.918, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.97 to 1.78)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(74.22) = -0.89, p = 0.379, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.33)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(74.14) = -0.32, p = 0.747, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.39)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(72.52) = -0.63, p = 0.529, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.63)
who
1st vs 2st
t(70.70) = -0.47, p = 0.641, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.95)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(67.26) = 0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.00)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(70.63) = 0.67, p = 0.503, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.19)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(68.68) = -1.05, p = 0.298, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.89 to 0.90)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(72.83) = -0.25, p = 0.801, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.89 to 2.24)